Court of Appeal - Protection of Children Act List and Prohibition from teaching and working in schools, December 05, 2008, [2008] EWCST 1274(PC)

Resolution Date:December 05, 2008
Issuing Organization:Protection of Children Act List and Prohibition from teaching and working in schools


[2008] EWCST 1274(PC) (5 December 2008)



Secretary of State

[2008] 1274 PC

[2008] 1275 PVA


Mrs Rosemary Hughes

(Nominated Chairman)

Mr Graham Harper

Mrs Sallie Prewett


Heard on 25 and 26 November 2008 at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre


The Appellant was represented by Mr Ian Wise of Counsel instructed by Bailey Wright & Co,. Solicitors of Birmingham.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Samantha Broadfoot of Counsel instructed by Treasury Solicitors.


SS appeals against the two decisions of the Respondent dated 3 January 2008 confirming the inclusion of her name on the Protection of Children Act list (PoCA List) and also confirming her name on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list (PoVA List). She was listed also under List 99, for which there is no separate right of appeal.

Restricted Reporting Order

This was made under Regulation18 (1) at a preliminary hearing on 3 July 2008. It was the panel's intention to continue this at the conclusion of the hearing and no application was made from either Counsel to the contrary. We therefore publish this decision under Regulation 27 in an anonymised form.

Preliminary Matters

Mr Wise told us at the beginning of the hearing that most of the evidence of the witnesses due to be called for the Respondent had been agreed between the parties apart from a small part of the evidence of Paula Hunt. Janine Turner would also be called for the Respondent. The Appellant had accepted the finding of misconduct and it was therefore possible to release four of the Respondent's witnesses.

The Evidence on behalf of the Respondent

  1. On 25 November 2008, Ms Hunt confirmed her written statement of 24 October 2006. She was an Ofsted Inspector called to investigate a complaint on 1 August 2006 at the premises of a Childcare Nursery run by the Appellant at her home in Winson Green. The hazards and poor condition of the premises were noted and the Appellant agreed to close the premises while building and other works were completed. Following a second visit on 22 August when it did not appear that any action had been taken to improve the premises, Ms Hunt called again on 1 September.

  2. On that occasion, Ms Hunt was admitted to the premises by a young child who was not supervised and it was several minutes before SS appeared despite loud shouting by Ms Hunt to summon an adult. The premises were still in an unsafe condition for children to be present and there was insufficient staff cover. A vehicle being used to transport the children was not properly insured and was in an unsuitable condition for such transportation. Concern was such that Ofsted suspended SS's registration on 1 September.

  3. Ofsted monitoring visits on 18 and 19 September noted that children were still being cared for in breach of the suspension order. On the 19 September visit, SS was seen to transport eight children in her car, with a number of adults, without having sufficient car seats or restraints. (New laws concerning child car seats had come into operation on 18 September).

  4. During a further monitoring visit by Ms Hunt on 21 September, SS was caring for two children who she said were relatives' children. In fact subsequent enquiries revealed that the relationship was too remote to qualify for unregistered care. Ms Hunt was concerned that both children sustained separate minor injuries during her visit and she did not consider that SS had dealt appropriately with the children. She told us that SS had shown no concern and did not comfort either child as might be expected. She described SS as `disaffected' with limited reactions to the children. This comment was disputed by SS in her evidence; she told us that she took one child on her lap but was trying to talk to Ms Hunt at the same time. Ms Hunt agreed that her visit would have been stressful for SS.

  5. In view of the number and seriousness of the breaches of the suspension order, Ofsted then sought emergency cancellation of SS's registration. After a...

To continue reading